K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THE State preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 24-1-2001 in S. C. No. 15/1996 on the file of the II Additional sessions Judge, Eluru, whereby the accused- respondents were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. ( 2 ) THE facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly stated as follows. The accused persons belong to yenuguvanilanka village. A-l and A-3 are sons of A-4. A-2, A-5 and A-6 are sons of eldest brother of A-4. There is a "maremma and Muvalamma" temple in the village. There is also a "rama" temple in the village. There were some disputesbetween the family of accused persons and of Devarapu Srinivas @ Sreenu, the deceased in this case, in connection with the performance of the functions in the temples. A festival wasbeing celebrated on 4-5-1995 and 5-5-1995 in the temple of "maremma and Muvalamma". In the midnight, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. A-3 caught hold of the deceased and dragged him to the "rama" temple. P. W. 1 saw this and questioned A-3 as to why he was doing so. Then A-2 beat him with a stick on his left elbow joint and left shoulder. A-l pocked the deceased with a crowbar underneath his left armpit and beat with the crowbar on his forehead. The deceased then cried. P. W. 1 too raised cries. On hearing the cries, P. W. 2 rushed to the spot. A-3 and A-5 beat P. W. 2 with sticks on his forehead. P. W. 3 then reached the scene of occurrence. A-4 beat him with a stick. P. W. 4 also went to the spot. He too was beaten on his head. The deceased died on the spot When the other villagers started reaching the scene of occurrence, the accused ran away. Police were informed about the incident. They reached the village at about 3. 30 a. m. on 5-5-1995. P. W. 1 made an oral complaint with the police, which was reduced into writing an marked as Ex. P-1 on the basis of which a case was registered and investigated into. P. W. 22 took up investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses, observed the scene of occurrence and seized bloodstained clothes and earth. He sent the injured witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 5, for treatment. P-1 on the basis of which a case was registered and investigated into. P. W. 22 took up investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses, observed the scene of occurrence and seized bloodstained clothes and earth. He sent the injured witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 5, for treatment. P. W. 17 treated them. P. W. 22 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and later sent it for conducting post-mortem examination. P. W. 16 conducted post- mortem examination. He opined that the deceased died due to the injuries. On completion of investigation, P. W. 22 laid a charge-sheet. Eight charges were framed against the accused - firstly against A-l to a-6 under Section 148 IPC, secondly against a-l under Section 302, thirdly against A-2 to a-6 under Section 302 read with Section 149 ipc, fourthly against A-2 under Section 324 ipc for voluntarily causing hurt to P. W. 1, fifthly against A-5 under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to P. W. 2, sixthly against A-4 under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to P. W. 3, seventhly against a-6 under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to P. W. 4, and lastly against a-l to A-6 under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to P. W. 5. The accused denied their guilt. On its behalf, prosecution examined 22 witnesses and marked 26 documents, besides M. Os. 1 to 6. The defence marked Exs. D-1 to D-9. On assessment of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly by the impugned judgment acquitted all the accused of all the charges, challenging the legality and correctness whereof the State preferred the present appeal. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused- respondents. ( 4 ) P. W. 22-Inspector of Police-conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 14. Ex. P-6 is the inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that the death of the deceased was the result of the injuries received by him. P. W. 16 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He found three injuries on the dead body. Ex. P-6 is the inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that the death of the deceased was the result of the injuries received by him. P. W. 16 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He found three injuries on the dead body. He opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to injuries to vital organs like heart and lungs. Ex. P-12 is the post-mortem certificate. The evidence of P. Ws. 22,14 and 16 and the recitals in Exs. P-6 and P-12, which remain unchallenged, prove that the deceased met with a homicidal death. ( 5 ) WE are conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, jurisdiction of the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judicially and is liable therefore to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is plausible, appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous. ( 6 ) BEARING the above principles of law in mind, we shall scrutinize the evidence on record with a great deal of circumspection. ( 7 ) THE trial Court did not consider the evidence of the injured witnesses. It did not give a finding as to whether their evidence was believable or not. In ter alia on the grounds that A-l was not fit to carry a crowbar with his right hand, that the Prosecution did not prove the overt acts committed by each of the accused and the nexus between the acts of the accused and the injuries received by p. Ws. 1 to5,and that there is no corroboration by independent witnesses to the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the trial Court acquitted the accused. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the accused contended that the Prosecution could not prove the motive on the part of the accused. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. 1 to5,and that there is no corroboration by independent witnesses to the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the trial Court acquitted the accused. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the accused contended that the Prosecution could not prove the motive on the part of the accused. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. He stated that on the occasion of the festival in 1994 i. e. , the previous year in which the incident in question took place, the accused behaved in an unruly manner and the deceased settled that affair, and since then the accused bore grudge against his family. P. W. 4 stated that there some disputes had arisen in 1994 year s festival between his family and the family of the accused and he settled the disputes. P. W. 6 stated that in 1994 year s festival A-3 pushed his youngest son and there was a dispute between them on that account and the dispute was settled. P. W. 9 too stated that there was a dispute between A-3 and P. W. 8 in 1994 year s festival and the dispute was settled. Thus the evidence on record shows that-there were some disputes between the family of the accused and the deceased in 1994 but they were settled in that year itself. Therefore, the disputes which had been settled one year back can hardly be said to be sufficient motive for the accused to commit the offences one year later. However motive is not integral part of the crime. It is only an aid in the assessment of the criminality. When there is acceptable evidence regarding the incident itself, proof of motive is irrelevant. Absence or non-proof of motive does not always create a doubt on the Prosecution case if the evidence adduce is otherwise considered reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, we would now assess the evidence on record to ascertain whether the evidence adduced by the Prosecution is reliable and trustworthy. ( 10 ) P. WS. 1 to 5 are injured witnesses in this case. P. W. 17 examined them. He found a laceration of about Ix /2" x V2 cm. on dorsal aspect of left elbow join t and an oblique contusion of reddish brown of about 3 x 1 cm. on deltoid muscles of P. W. 1. ( 10 ) P. WS. 1 to 5 are injured witnesses in this case. P. W. 17 examined them. He found a laceration of about Ix /2" x V2 cm. on dorsal aspect of left elbow join t and an oblique contusion of reddish brown of about 3 x 1 cm. on deltoid muscles of P. W. 1. He treated p. W. 2 and found a horizontal laceration of aboutl x V2x/ 1/x cm on centre of forehead. He examined P. W. 3 and found a lacerated injury of 1. 5 x /2 x 1 cm. on the knuckle of dorsum of left hand and an oblique contusion of about 3x1 cm. on lateral aspect of right shoulder joint. He also examined P. W. 4 and found a swelling of about 2 cm near right ear pinna. He treated P. W. 5 and found a diffuse swelling of l/3rd left forearm on dorsum and an abrasion of 2 cm. on left upper arm. He issued wound certificates-Exs. P-13, P-15, p-14, P-16 and P-17 in respect of P. Ws. 2 to 5 respectively. The evidence of P. W. 17and the recitals in Exs. P-13 to P-17 remain unchallenged, except that it was suggested to P. W. 17 that some injuries could be possible by a fall on the ground and some injuries by rubbing which P. W. 17 denied. Therefore, we hold that P. Ws. 1 to 5 sustained injuries. ( 11 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor contended that P. Ws. 1 to 5 are injured witnesses in the incident and their evidence can be believed. Learned counsel for the accused contended that these witnesses are related to the deceased and so their evidence has to be thrown out, because when the festival was going on, several independent witnesses would be present at the scene of occurrence and must have witnessed the incident, but none of the independent witnesses was examined. ( 12 ) THE incident in question took place near Ram temple in the village. Ex. P-24- rough sketch of the scene of occurrence- shows that, in between Ram temple and maremma temple, where the festival was going on, there was a road. It shows that these two temples are not situated side by side. P. W. 1 admitted that 300 people gathered at the festival. But the festival was going on at Maremma temple. Ex. P-24- rough sketch of the scene of occurrence- shows that, in between Ram temple and maremma temple, where the festival was going on, there was a road. It shows that these two temples are not situated side by side. P. W. 1 admitted that 300 people gathered at the festival. But the festival was going on at Maremma temple. It is quite natural that the people gathered at the festival must haveengaged themselves in the festival, and they would not leave the place of festival and go near Ram temple to see, for just no reason, as to whether there was anything curious going on in the midnight. This is apparent in view of the statement of P. W. 1 that as the people started gathering at the scene of occurrence, the accused ran away. The people must have started gathering at the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 5. So, the people gathered at Maremma temple might not have witnessed the incident. It appears that the deceased was dragged to a distance of 40 to 50 feet further from Ram temple, as testified by P. W. 1, so that the people gathered at the festival could not hear the commotion or witness the incident. That appears the reason why the Prosecution did not choose to examine any independent witness. Therefore, non-examination of independent witnesses cannot invite adverse inference, in the ci rcumstances of the case Even otherwise, there is no rule of presumption that the evidence of a relative witness would qlways be interested one and such witness would only have hostile attitude towards the accused facing the trial. Even otherwise, if really the incident has been witnessed by impartial and independent witnesses and they have been withheld, it must be shown before an adverse inference can be drawn for such withholding that they have been purposely withheld. Nothing has been established that the Prosecution deliberately withheld the examination of any impartial and independent eyewitness. It has not been elicited from the cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses that some independent witnesses witnessed the incident. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused in this respect has, therefore, only to be rejected. Nothing has been established that the Prosecution deliberately withheld the examination of any impartial and independent eyewitness. It has not been elicited from the cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses that some independent witnesses witnessed the incident. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused in this respect has, therefore, only to be rejected. ( 13 ) IT has now to be seen as to who caused the injuries to the injured witnesses and whether the injuries were caused in the same course of transaction in which the deceased was murdered. ( 14 ) BEFORE accepting and relying upon the evidence of an injured witness, it has got to be closely scrutinized by examining it from the following angles - (a) whether the alleged injuries were received in the course of same transaction, (b) whether there was sufficient light at the time and place of incident to identify the accused, and (c) whether the injury found on the person of the witness rules out a case of self-inflicted injuries. We would now proceed to examine the evidence of the injured witnesses from these angles. ( 15 ) P. W. 1 stated that when he was going for the festival, A-3 caught hold of the deceased near Ram temple and dragged him to a distance of 40 to 50 feet while the other accused were holding sticks. He asked A-3 as to why he was dragging the deceased. Then A-2 beat him with a stick on his left elbow joint and on shoulder. A-l went to the house of A-2 and brought a crowbar. He pocked the deceased with the crowbar underneath his left armpit and on his head. The deceased raised cries. On hearing the cries, P. W. 2 came to the spot. A-3 and A-5 beat P. W. 2 with sticks on his forehead. P. W. 3, father of P. W. 2, rushed to the spot and he was beaten by A-4 with a stick. P. W. 2 stated that on hearing the cries of the deceased, he went to the spot. A-3 and A-5 beat him on his forehead and left arm respectively with sticks. P. W. 3 stated that he went to the scene of occurrence and was beaten by A-4 on his head and A-5 on his right shoulder. P. W. 2 stated that on hearing the cries of the deceased, he went to the spot. A-3 and A-5 beat him on his forehead and left arm respectively with sticks. P. W. 3 stated that he went to the scene of occurrence and was beaten by A-4 on his head and A-5 on his right shoulder. P. W. 4 stated that on hearing the cries of P. W. 1 he went to the spot and was beaten by A-6 with a stick on his right ear. P. W. 5 stated that somebody beat him on his back. Therefore, though he was injured, it cannot be said that any of the accused beat him. It is pertinent to note that P. Ws. 2 to 4 did not say that they had witnessed the attack on the deceased or P. W. 1. If they wanted to perjure themselves they could as well have stated in their evidence of having seen the attack on the deceased and P. W. 1. They only stated about the injuries received by them and about the presence of the accused with weapons in their hands. It was not even suggested to P. Ws. 1 to 4 that they sustained the injuries in some other manner and at some other place by some other persons. The fact that P. Ws. 1 to 5 sustained injuries has not been specifically denied or disputed in their cross-examination. Therefore, it can be said that these witnesses are truthful witnesses. ( 16 ) THE question now is whether there was sufficient light at the scene of occurrence so as to identify the accused. Admittedly the accused and the witnesses knew each other very well. Therefore, even slight illumination of light would be sufficient to identify each other. P. W. 1 stated there was an electric pole situated near the scene of occurrence and a light was fixed to the pole. This fact has not been challenged in the cross-examination. Therefore, it can be said that there was sufficient light at the scene of occurrence, and from the evidence on record it can also be said that the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses are not self-inflicted. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR which suggests that it was lodged after due deliberations. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR which suggests that it was lodged after due deliberations. ( 18 ) P. W. 19 was working as S. I. of Police. He stated that he received a telephone call at 3. 30 a. m. on 5-5-1995 from P. W. 10 about the incident and proceeded to the village after making an entry in the general diary. He recorded the oral statement given by P. W. 1 which was marked as Ex. P-1 at 5. 30 a. m. The distance between the village and the police station is about 6 kms, as stated by P. W. 1. At 3. 30 a. m. P. W. 19 was informed over phone and he traveled a distance of 6 kms in the early morning and recorded the statement of p. W. 1 at 5. 30 a. m. Probably the FIR would have come to be lodged with the police within even much earlier had any of the witnesses gone to the police station instead of informing the police over phone. The time taken was only for travel by police to the village. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no delay at all. ( 19 ) THE earliest version in Ex. P-1 is completely in corroboration with the evidence of P. W. 1 on all material particulars. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 has been consistent through out. Therefore, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused are assailants of the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 4. ( 20 ) IT has now to be seen whether the accused shared the common object to kill the deceased. In Cliandra Bilmri Gautam v. State of b/ /mr1 it has been held as follows:"section 149 has two parts. First part deals with the commission of an offence by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly and the second part deals with the liability of the members of the unlawful assembly who knew that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object for which they had assembled. First part deals with the commission of an offence by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly and the second part deals with the liability of the members of the unlawful assembly who knew that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object for which they had assembled. Even if the common object of the unlawful assembly is stated to be apprehending Nawlesh Singh only, the fact that the accused persons had attacked the house of the complainant at the dead of night and were armed with deadly weapons including the guns, and used petrol bombs, proves beyond doubt that they knew that in prosecution of the alleged initial common object, murders were likely to be committed. The knowledge of the consequential action in further of the initial common object is sufficient to attract the applicability of section 149 for holding the members of the unlawful assembly guilty of the commission of the offence by any member of such assembly. " ( 21 ) FROM the above decision it is clear that the two essentials of Section 149 IPC are - (a) commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly, and (b) commission of such offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or the knowledge of the members of that assembly that such offence was likely to be committed. The common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them, and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused also relied upon Exs. D-1 to D-9 the omissions/ improvements elicited in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. These omissions/ improvements are that P. W. 1 stated before the police that A-l absconded with crowbar but denied in his cross-examination to have stated so, and with regard to A-l to A-6 holding sticks, or A-3 dragging the deceased or A-3 beating P. W. 2 etc. , which, in our opinion, are bound to occur because of lapse of more than five years time and undue importance cannot be given to such innocuous improvements/omissions when the main substratum of the Prosecution case is not affected. , which, in our opinion, are bound to occur because of lapse of more than five years time and undue importance cannot be given to such innocuous improvements/omissions when the main substratum of the Prosecution case is not affected. ( 23 ) EXCEPT that A-2 to A-6 were armed with sticks, there was no evidence on record to show that they shared the common object with A-l in killing the deceased. In a village like the one in the present case, it is nothing unnatural for a villager to carry a stick with him, especially when a festival is going on in the night in the village. Holding the stick does not incriminate him in an offence, unless he is shown to have shared common object along with another person who committed the offence. Except A-l, none of the other accused caused injuries to the deceased. Had the other accused also shared common object along with A-l, they would have certainly caused or at least attempted to cause injuries to the deceased with the sticks in their hands. They did not do so. Therefore, we hold that the first charge against A-l to A-6 under section 148 fails. ( 24 ) THE second charge is against A-l under section 302 IPC. It is in the evidence of p. W. 1 that A-l beat the deceased with the crowbar as a result of which the deceased fell down and died. Though P. Ws. 2,3 and 5 did not witness this attack, they stated in one voice that they saw A-l with the crowbar in his hand at the scene of occurrence and the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The medical evidence would go to show that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him to his lungs and heart. The trial Court held that A-l was not fit to carry a crowbar in his right hand, in view of the statement made by P. W. 4 in his cross-examination. P. W. 4 stated that A-l fell down from a bridge about 7 or 8 years before and received a fracture to his right elbow joint due to which he could not stretch his hartd freely. Even without stretching hand, one can lift and carry a crowbar and without stretching hand one can also cause injury to another. P. W. 4 stated that A-l fell down from a bridge about 7 or 8 years before and received a fracture to his right elbow joint due to which he could not stretch his hartd freely. Even without stretching hand, one can lift and carry a crowbar and without stretching hand one can also cause injury to another. The trial court, probably on physical observation, held that A-l could not lift his hand upward. A-l could not lift his hand upward in the Court perhaps. This has to be so, because there is no medical evidence that due to the fracture sustained by A-l eight years before, he could not at all lift or carry a crowbar or make an attack with the crowbar. A-l did not lead any evidence about this physical disability. That a-l beat the deceased with the crowbar has been consistent right from the registration of the FIR till P. W. 1 deposed in the Court. At the instance of A-l, M. O. 1-crowbar- was seized which contained human blood as per fsl report-Ex. P-26. Due to the injury caused by A-l the deceased died. Hence, the charge against him is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 25 ) COMING to the third charge against a-2 to A-6 under Section 302 read with section 149 IPC, we have already held supra [hat A-2 to A-6 did not share common intention with A-l to kill the deceased. Therefore, this charge also fails. ( 26 ) THE fourth charge is against A-2 under section 324 IPC for causing injury to P. W. 1. A-2 beat P. W. 1 with a stick on his shoulder and left elbow joint. The evidence of P. W. 1 is in corroboration with the medical evidence as far as P. W. 1 sustaining the injuries is concerned. The injuries sustained by P. W. 1 are simple in nature. A-2 did not use dangerous weapon. Therefore, we hold that a-2 is liable to be convicted under Sec. 323 ipc. ( 27 ) THE fifth charge is against A-5 under section 324 IPC for causing injury to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 1 and 2 stated that A-3 and A-5 beat p. W. 2 on his forehead and left arm with sticks respectively. There was no charge against A-3. It appears that it was an improvement. ( 27 ) THE fifth charge is against A-5 under section 324 IPC for causing injury to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 1 and 2 stated that A-3 and A-5 beat p. W. 2 on his forehead and left arm with sticks respectively. There was no charge against A-3. It appears that it was an improvement. The injury receivelby P. W. 2 is also simple in nature. Therefore, we hold that A-5 is liable to be convicted under section 323 IPC. ( 28 ) THE sixth charge was against A-4 under section 326 for causing grievous hurt to p. W. 3. P. W. 3 stated that when A-4 was about to beat him on his head, he warded off the blow with his hand and therefore he received an injury to the index finger of his left hand. P. W. 1 corroborates the evidence of P. W. 3. The medical evidence shows that there was a fracture to left index finger of p. W. 1. P. W. 3 stated that A-4 bet him with a stick. A-4 did not use any dangerous weapon. Therefore, we hold that A-4 is liable to be punished under Section 325 IPC. Though p. W. 3 stated that A-5 beat him on his shoulder, there was no charge against A-5. ( 29 ) THE seventh charge was against A-6 under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to p. W. 4. P. W. 4 stated that A-6 beat him with a stick on his right ear. Medical evidence shows that it is a simple injury. Therefore, a-6 is liable to be convicted under Sec. 323 ipc. ( 30 ) THE last charge was against A-l to a-6 under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to p. W. 5. P. W. Sstatedthat somebody beathim on his back. He did not say that the accused beat him. Therefore, this charge fails. ( 31 ) THE incident in question took place more than eight years back. No untoward incident is said to have taken place in the village between the parties subsequent thereto. Having regard to these facts and considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is not desirable to send the accused convicted under Sec. 323 ipc at this stage to jail and they can be imposed fine instead. No untoward incident is said to have taken place in the village between the parties subsequent thereto. Having regard to these facts and considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is not desirable to send the accused convicted under Sec. 323 ipc at this stage to jail and they can be imposed fine instead. ( 32 ) IN the result, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, in so far as A-l, a-2 and A-4 to A-6 are concerned, is set aside, and is confirmed in respect of A-3. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rupees One thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A-2, A-5 and A-6 are convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. A-4 is convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.